A list of reasonable, and thought out, gun control law proposals for discussion.

1. All guns sold, personal or private, must come with a cable, trigger or some other locking mechanism.

This does not require that the lock be integral to the gun, which some states do require already. However, it does ensure that any gun purchased after a certain date through legal channels came with a lock, and therefor the owner had a method available to ensure it was secured.

With this law in place, gun owners will not have an excuse on those firearms if a child accesses a weapon and it was not properly secured. However, if the lock was in use, then the owner is not liable (within reason) for actions taken by a thief, etc.

I believe most, if not all, manufacturers are providing these locks with new guns and they are relatively cheap. I found Master Lock gun cable locks for less than $4.00 on Amazon.com. This requirement will not add a significant expense to the cost of buying a gun.

2. All guns sold, personal or private, must include a background check.

This is a fairly simply requirement that will help ensure gun sellers don't accidentally transfer a firearm to someone that shouldn't legally have access to them.

I believe it is perfectly reasonable to expect that people take precautions to keep firearms out of the hands of convicted criminals, fugitives, court ordered mental patients and those with protective orders filed against them.

This will help ensure someone considering harming someone else, under the influence of any drugs or alcohol, suicidal, etc. does not have immediate access to a firearm they don't already own.

4. A federal database of stolen or wanted (by judge issued warrant) firearms should be created.

A simple system that allows those who file a police report to include the serial number of a stolen firearm. That serial number can then be entered into the database and will help prevent the future sale of a stolen weapon.

This database can also be used by the police to locate a specific weapon they believe has been used in a crime. For example, they execute a search warrant for John's firearms because they believe John used that gun in a shooting. They are unable to locate John's firearm but do find documentation in John's home containing the gun's serial number. They can now enter the serial number into this database so that if the gun is located the police department can be notified.

This database is NOT to be used as a database of who owns what guns, etc. It is only intended as an optional database of stolen or missing firearms.

5. All gun transfers must be processed by a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL).

Unfortunately this will likely be the most expensive proposal I make for gun buyers but I believe there are a number of benefits to this requirement.

First, I would like to better explain what I expect from this. Bob wants to sell a gun to Jim. Bob can still do this, but Jim must pay a small fee to a FFL to make this transfer legal. I suspect many gun dealers would make this fee as small as possible for a number of reasons. First and foremost, getting the customer in the door might lead to future sales. They also can use this opportunity to offer additional products to the new buyer. For example, the buyer may need ammunition, might want to have the gun checked, cleaned, might want training, etc.

I believe there are multiple benefits for the seller, buyer and general public from this law.

The FFL will be responsible for ensuring the background check is performed, checking the federal database to ensure the gun is not wanted or stolen, ensuring a gun lock is included in the transfer, ensuring the proper waiting period has passed and that all other applicable laws are followed.

The FFL should maintain records of all firearms transfers so that the chain of ownership can be verified in the future if needed. They are not allowed to submit this documentation to any federal, state or local database however. This requirement is to ensure a database of gun owners is not created (something that rightfully concerns many gun owners). The benefit of keeping these records is that it does allow police to access information from a specific FFL with a warrant and if a gun is used in a crime, those who no longer own the firearm are able to show a legal transfer, etc.

The seller gets the benefit of knowing a proper background check has been run on the buyer. They also have a licensed third party that will provide documentation showing the firearm has been legally transfered to another party and therefor no longer have any responsibility or liability if that firearm is ever used to commit a crime. They have evidence that a gun lock was provided (either by them, or the FFL), etc. As a gun seller I have reason to be concerned if a buyer is hesitant to agree to this process.

The buyer gets the benefit of knowing the gun has not been reported as stolen and is not currently wanted due to possible use in a crime. They also have paperwork showing the date of the transfer and therefor have no liability for any actions taken with the gun before that date. They receive all documentation of applicable laws in the state, etc. (for example, Wisconsin requires that all new guns sold include a statement notifying the new owner that they are responsible if their firearm was not secured and is accessed by a minor). They have the opportunity to have the firearm inspected during the waiting period if desired, etc. As a gun buyer I also have reason to be concerned if a gun seller is hesitant to agree to this process.

The general public has the benefit of knowing proper background checks were run, all laws were followed, etc.

-----------------------------------------

I believe each of these is a reasonable proposal that has the potential to keep guns out of the wrong hands without significantly infringing on the rights of gun owners.

In recent weeks I've heard a number of proposals that I don't believe have any basis in reality, have any chance of making a legitimate difference, or substantially infringe on people's right to own arms. I've heard suggestions to limit all firearms to holding only 3-4 rounds, limit people to owning only one handgun and even suggestions to repeal the 2nd amendment. I have significant concerns about each of these suggestions which is why I tried to take the time to come up with some beginning suggestions that I actually believe to be helpful.

What are your thoughts? Concerns on any of these? Other suggestions? Let's try to keep the name calling and personal attacks on this subject to a minimum. I want to hear opinions on the subject, not that you think I'm stupid, or anyone else is stupid. (I realize this may be asking too much).

Like I said in a previous post in your other attempt to start a conversation on the latest liberal push toward restricting or abolishing 2nd Amendment Rights. "I'm not a gun guy but outlawing guns is akin to outlawing autos because we have drunk drivers. We opened the doors to most of the mental institutions in this country in the early 70s and since then none of these nut cases can land in a any kind of a lock-up for more than a few days. This latest criminal clown could have done as much damage at that school with a baseball bat. Gun restricting laws wouldn't have made a difference."

So my question is, how does this restrict any of the rights gun owners already have? The goal of my suggestions is to help ensure guns stay out of the hands of criminals and that sales are on the up and up. Realistically, I think my suggestions simply offer a way to actually enforce the laws already on the books more than anything else.

And rather than bashing suggestions as a liberal push toward restricting rights you might want to view it as a post from a gun owner that wants to ensure his rights are protected...

The second amendment covers gun ownership well enough to suit most Americans and has for over two hundred years without the liberal push to restrict gun ownership and without a new layer of government bureaucracy to enforce added restrictions. Let's not forget the most important part and unmentioned in your proposed list of suggested regulations, the additional taxes and fees that will come in support of said bureaucracy. More laws, more taxes same old stuff. Will any of your suggestions actually stop or restrict criminal behavior?

"And rather than bashing suggestions as a liberal push toward restricting rights you might want to view it as a post from a gun owner that wants to ensure his rights are protected..." I bashed none of your suggestions but that statement kind of reminds me of the black man that is introduced to the white guy at a party and the first thing out of the white guys is mouth is "Some of my best friends are black."

So how does requiring a background check restrict anyones rights (other than criminals)? And how does requiring a background check not reduce the ease for criminals to get a gun? And to be clear, I did mention that there would be fees. I also mentioned that I believe they would be minimal as a lock is cheap, and everything else is handled by requiring the transfer be done by an FFL (which I also suspect would be fairly cheap). And none of my suggestions add any cost to buying a new gun as everything I suggested is already done on new firearms.

What exactly right now prevents a criminal from simply going to any gun show, or even responding to a classified ad, and buying a gun? It's illegal, but what's stopping them? There is a reason it's not uncommon to read about a felon in possession of a firearm.

Buying a car is currently more closely watched than buying a gun (and no, I don't think registering guns is a good idea). Heck, buying cigarettes or alcohol is more closely regulated. There is always room for improvement in the way we do things. Gun regulations have been changed, significantly in many cases, over the last 200 years so implying that nothing has changed since the constitution was created isn't exactly an accurate statement. If nothing had changed you would be able to walk into Vieguts and buy an Uzi. So is your suggestion to change nothing? Just keep letting shootings happen without any discussion on how to improve the situation? Or are you in favor of some other method of reducing crime? As a responsible gun owner I'm always open to discussions on how things can be made safer, improved or better ways of doing things.

Here are my questions for you and your gun control suggestions. Exactly who, and how, would pay for these so called back-ground checks?

As I recall, the last gun I purchased a back-ground check was performed on myself. I also recall a 48 hour wait (cooling-down) period. I also recall for every gun purchase giving my ID to the gun store clerk, that the store clerk made a copy of. So these suggestions of yours are already in affect. These rules/laws do NOT keep guns out of criminal hands. The only thing your liberal gun control will do is create a black market. The talking heads on the media sensationalizing the tragic events in Conn. and Colorado, are the problem with this country. Gun control is not the answer.

Tooten is correct, our forefathers have already mapped the rules out for us in the the US constitution. More beauracracy is not the answer to this problem. The answer to many of these problems is concquences for these criminals. That includes the death penalty.

A background check costs $13 (I have the receipt). As I said, there will be some expense from requiring a gun lock $4-5 and going through an FFL. Obviously these expenses and the waiting period weren't too much of a hassle for you when you purchased a gun from a dealer (which is why you had to submit to the background check and wait 48-hours).

My proposed rules simply ensure everyone that buys a gun has to go through the same reasonable process you did. If it makes sense to require a background check, doesn't it make sense to require one on any gun purchased? And how do my suggestions NOT keep guns out of criminal hands? As the laws stand right now a felon can get a gun from anyone selling a used firearm without anyone asking questions. With these basic changes a felon has to find another person willing to break the law before they can get a gun. I'd call that a significant reduction in availability.

I'll be the first to admit my suggestions wouldn't have stopped the most recent mass shootings. However, they have a reasonable chance of reducing the much more common gun crimes (mass shootings really aren't that common, despite the news they generate). However, the only suggestion I see in your response, tougher consequences including the death penalty not only won't stop the mass shootings, history has shown it has little effect on actual crime and is significantly more costly than my suggestions in the long run (it's not cheap to keep people in prison and it's even more expensive to kill them).

So, once again, what better suggestions do people have? What legitimate negative consequences do my suggestions have other than adding a small amount to the cost of a used gun (which I already admitted would happen, multiple times)?

Oh, and by the way. If you buy a gun online it is already supposed to be transferred through an FFL so my process already exists (that's part of where the idea comes from). In reality, my suggestions only make it a requirement for all sales and create a stolen gun database (as an IT person I can tell you that isn't exactly complex).

There is already a stolen property database that includes guns. It has been in existence since the mid-sixties and it is called NCIC or the National Crime Information Center. Law enforcement officers routinely have their dispatch centers enter stolen firearms into this database and crosscheck serial numbers of any weapons that they recover or come into contact with on the street. I spent most of my adult life in or involved with law enforcement and not once did I ever see a gun of any kind attack a human by itself. Until the courts start taking seriously the existing laws regarding criminal conduct with firearms the situation will not improve. Law enforcement officers often arrest probationers and convicted felons in possession of firearms and watch the court system put them back on the street with little or no punishment.

In the early-seventies liberal politicians closed the doors to most of the mental institutions in the country and released many people not capable of functioning normally in society, including many criminally insane people. That continues to this day and the results of this action can be seen in most metro areas by the large number of derelict and homeless people. The former function of those institutions is now left up to consolers and social workers who have no real authority to lock the mentally ill up for more than two to three days. I understand that both the Colorado and the Connecticut mass shooters where under the care of "professionals" at the time of their shooting rampages. Unless these "professionals" and the individual's families are willing to red flag these criminally insane persons nothing can be done with them until they commit a crime and come under law enforcement's jurisdiction. Apparently the Colorado shooter was under the care of a Doctor within the University system and had made threats before and at the time of that incident. For what ever reason his threats went unreported. It appears that the Connecticut shooters mother attempted to hide or cover-up her son's insanity, purchased several firearms that she stored within his reach and eventually became his first victim. One must wonder how crazy was she. In their moments of rage these insane individuals will build a bomb, light off a can of gasoline, use a knife, a club, a pitchfork or whatever to commit their havoc. These type of individuals can't and won't be stopped by any new firearms regulations and the only persons effected will be law abiding gun owners.

What exactly right now prevents a criminal from simply going to any gun show, or even responding to a classified ad, and buying a gun? It's illegal, but what's stopping them?

The reply to the first question is very simple, Absolutely nothing. Same answer for the second question, Absolutely nothing. What license, regulation, fee, tax, back ground check or additional C will prevent said criminal from sending a surrogate to simply go to any gun show, or respond to a classified ad, and buy a gun? Again, Absolutely nothing. It may be illegal and what's stopping them, Absolutely nothing. They are criminals and will do what ever it takes. They will steal, burglarize, con and even kill to satisfy their needs. They will also traffic in illegal firearms just as they do illegal drugs. Maybe the criminals can locate and import some of the weapons that were illegally sent to Mexico by the Obama administration's Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department. Seems like that was their last attempt at forcing gun control on the American public. Those automatic rifles must be getting hot down there because they seem to be turning up at murder scenes all over Mexico and on the United States border.

There is a reason it's not uncommon to read about a felon in possession of a firearm.

There certainly is a reason that it not uncommon to read about a felon in possession of a firearm. That statement requires a two part response; (1). The offender is a criminal (2). Liberal judges disregard the intent of the law don't treat these offenders as criminals and seldom sentence them to the limits of the law. More often than not they are dumped back into the probation and parole system with a small amount of county jail time and are soon running the streets in search of their next victim.

I find it interesting that you mentioned buying cars, cigarettes and alcoholic beverages especially when all have been used by various government agencies and their bureaucracies to extract more monies from the public in the way of regulations, licenses, fees and taxes. There is always room for improvement in the way we do things but I haven't noticed any significant improvements in the taste of cigarettes or booze but the price has quadrupled over the last twenty years thanks to the governmental additions to the price we pay for such items. The DMV sure has improved their the way they do things with a three fold increase in registration, licensing and title fees over the last 10 years. What I find very entertaining is instead of the usual liberal speak of a "bazooka in the backyard" we now have a "Uzi from Viegut's."

Just keep letting shootings happen without any discussion on how to improve the situation? Or are you in favor of some other method of reducing crime?

I would prefer Public Hangings when it comes to violent criminals or acts of treason committed by politicians.

I think the Constitution has served us well for 200 years, but you need not be concerned, Joe Biden announced this afternoon that President Obama is considering taking executive action to stem "gun violence," suggesting that some federal gun regulations will change even if support doesn't materialize in Congress. The Constitution be ****.

One law or one hundred laws will not stop someone who is intent upon committing a crime with a gun or any other weapon/means. Further regulating those who choose to follow laws does nothing to deter those who don't care about laws. One person with no criminal record can supply a large group of people with guns over time with your proposals and be well compensated for it. How do you plan to regulate that?

"So, once again, what better suggestions do people have? What legitimate negative consequences do my suggestions have other than adding a small amount to the cost of a used gun (which I already admitted would happen, multiple times)?"

Strict adherence to laws currently in place, reduced opportunity for reduced sentences and less plea-bargaining.

1. All guns sold, personal or private, must come with a cable, trigger or some other locking mechanism.

I feel it is the buyers responsibility to secure their firearms. I don't feel that the burden should be on the seller to purchase something for the person doing the buying. If they purchase the firearm it is their responsibility to make sure that is is stored safely in their home.

I suspect many gun dealers would make this fee as small as possible for a number of reasons.

I have a hard time with this one. I have no doubt that many would take advantage of the law as a way to make some easy money. Besides the cost of the background check they would add on a hefty fee for handling the transfer. You have more faith in people than I do based on some previous experience with some business people.

The FFL should maintain records of all firearms transfers so that the chain of ownership can be verified in the future if needed.

My question is for example; if I have a gun that I bought 40 years ago or inherited many years ago and just sell it to someone without going through the background check, how is anyone going to prove where the person got the gun. I could claim that I never owned it and there is no record to prove I ever did. I may have purchased it from another private party and it may have changed hands several times. Unless the person commits a crime there may never be any record of the firearm as to who owns it or where it came from. There are a lot of them out there that would be in that situation and will never be accounted for through a sale. The only way would be if I reported it stolen.

They are not allowed to submit this documentation to any federal, state or local database however. This requirement is to ensure a database of gun owners is not created (something that rightfully concerns many gun owners).

And you actually believe that some day in the not to distant future that the feds aren't going to come along and grab all those records if they ever decided to do something about private gun owners.

The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.

That's a cleaver way to say you'd like to end all gun shows. Don't urinate on a stick and tell me it's a lollipop. "Resonable" and "well thought out" you say.........I say moronic.

Really? Funny, it took about 5-10 minutes to run a background check last time and I was told that the state is looking at making it possible to do via the web. I mean, it would be nearly impossible to have someone with an FFL at a gun show and a few people available to do the calls if necessary wouldn't it?

And the argument that you're from out of town for a gun show is also solved. It's treated exactly the same way an internet sale is. The gun is shipped to an FFL of your choosing where ever you will be after the 48 hour wait is up.

To me the point of the gun show is so I can see the gun, hold it, check it over, make sure it is exactly what I want, in other words "show". I spend a lot of time researching what I consider important purchases and holding some objects is critical. Having to wait a few days to pick it up shouldn't end the world...

I feel it is the buyers responsibility to secure their firearms. I don't feel that the burden should be on the seller to purchase something for the person doing the buying. If they purchase the firearm it is their responsibility to make sure that is is stored safely in their home.

While I agree, I can't think of many other ways to be able to say in court, you had a lock, why wasn't your gun secure. This could be tweaked so that the FFL just has to see the buyer has a lock (I believe California requires you to show a receipt for a lock which seems dumb too, if the buyer walks in with a lock this could satisfy the requirement.

I've read of people with concealed carry permits that actually like having the provided cable locks because they will lock their gun to their car when they are going somewhere they can't carry. Makes it that much harder to steal if someone breaks into the car.

I have a hard time with this one. I have no doubt that many would take advantage of the law as a way to make some easy money. Besides the cost of the background check they would add on a hefty fee for handling the transfer. You have more faith in people than I do based on some previous experience with some business people.

As I mentioned earlier, the cost of the background check on a handgun was $13 last time I checked. I agree some FFL's might try to take advantage of the situation, but there are a lot of them and nothing mandates you have to use a certain one. The beauty of free market is someone is always willing to do it for less if they can figure out a way to still make a buck...

I'm not tying you to one specific FFL, you can certainly shop around. Using a FFL search from gunbroker.com I was able to find three currently listed within 10 miles of Tomahawk. That means there are already at least three places that are able to help you with an internet gun purchase.

I could be wrong, but I really think this could be one of those things people use just to get customers into their shop. Going back to Viegut's as my example, there is a reasonable chance you might leave with ammo, maybe a case, or a holster. Possibly some targets, etc.

My question is for example; if I have a gun that I bought 40 years ago or inherited many years ago and just sell it to someone without going through the background check, how is anyone going to prove where the person got the gun. I could claim that I never owned it and there is no record to prove I ever did. I may have purchased it from another private party and it may have changed hands several times. Unless the person commits a crime there may never be any record of the firearm as to who owns it or where it came from. There are a lot of them out there that would be in that situation and will never be accounted for through a sale. The only way would be if I reported it stolen.

There are about 300 million out there that fit this example right now. I'm not trying to have a chain of ownership going back beyond "now". However, if this law was passed, and you sold me the gun you bought 40 years ago. And then six months from now I killed someone with it, you would have the paperwork to show (with a third party documenting) that I purchased that gun from you legally and you weren't in possession of it. On the reverse side, if I bought that gun from you, and then later the police linked it to a crime committed before I purchased it from you, I'm also secured in that I can show paperwork verifying that I wasn't in possession of that gun then. It's a safety net for each of us (well, as long as neither one of us plan on committing a crime).

And you actually believe that some day in the not to distant future that the feds aren't going to come along and grab all those records if they ever decided to do something about private gun owners.

Unfortunately, it's possible. But then they also could get all of the records from every gun dealer for all the new firearms too. Or they could mandate that you register everything and nail anyone buying a hunting license that doesn't have a registered gun too. Or make you show the gun when you register a deer, etc.

My hope is if the law is written carefully, any change could be considered an illegal search and seizure and overturned by the courts. I agree it isn't ideal, and maybe keeping the records should be taken off the table. That's what the discussion is for...

neup99 wrote:One law or one hundred laws will not stop someone who is intent upon committing a crime with a gun or any other weapon/means. Further regulating those who choose to follow laws does nothing to deter those who don't care about laws. One person with no criminal record can supply a large group of people with guns over time with your proposals and be well compensated for it. How do you plan to regulate that?

One person providing those guns is going to get caught because criminals have a nasty habit of committing crimes. One of them will turn over on where they got the gun pretty quickly. The person providing the guns just committed a felony for not following the law, loses any right to own a gun, and now can't pass a background check. It's one of the very few crimes you'd only be able to get caught committing once.

tooten wrote:There is already a stolen property database that includes guns. It has been in existence since the mid-sixties and it is called NCIC or the National Crime Information Center.

Excellent, one less cost. Just give the FFL access to search for serial numbers in that database and we're done...

tooten wrote:Law enforcement officers often arrest probationers and convicted felons in possession of firearms and watch the court system put them back on the street with little or no punishment.

Then isn't reducing the availability of those guns a good idea?

tooten wrote:In the early-seventies liberal politicians closed the doors to most of the mental institutions in the country and released many people not capable of functioning normally in society, including many criminally insane people.

And a large number of those people also were "committed" with out trial, etc. I don't remember the part of the constitution that says we can just throw you in an institution because you "might" commit a crime. Also, the process of reducing the mental institution population started in the 50's

It's also interesting that violent crime is at its lowest rate since 1970. With all those mental's diseased people running around you would think the numbers would be higher wouldn't you? And it's estimated that over 26% of Americans over the age of 18 have a diagnosable mental disorder. So, who gets to decide which ones should be committed because they "might" commit a crime?

tooten wrote:What license, regulation, fee, tax, back ground check or additional C will prevent said criminal from sending a surrogate to simply go to any gun show, or respond to a classified ad, and buy a gun?

They might be able to get away with it, yes. But it still makes the process harder. And that surrogate is going to be easier to track down. Is going to have committed a felony. Is no longer legally allowed to own a gun. And will NEVER be able to commit that crime again because they'll never pass a background check.

tooten wrote:I think the Constitution has served us well for 200 years, but you need not be concerned, Joe Biden announced this afternoon that President Obama is considering taking executive action to stem "gun violence," suggesting that some federal gun regulations will change even if support doesn't materialize in Congress. The Constitution be ****.

I'm concerned about this too. But before we worry too much about executive orders, lets see what they're suggesting too. Remember that they are trying to stem gun violence and all executive orders can really do is modify enforcement. He can't change the law but he can require that things be enforced differently (for example, he could require that mental patients be entered in the background check database).

*************************

On a side note, congrats, you managed to bring up "liberal" three times in one post. If you focus less on blame and more on the issue at hand your posts might come across as a little less fanatical... You have good information, and some good points, shifting the focus by blaming doesn't help your argument.

So who exactly would a gun lock keep from getting at your gun?I just want to get this straight.In Wisconsin,If you leave a firearm within the reach or easy access of a child you may be fined or imprisoned or both if the child improperly discharges, possesses , or exhibits the firearm.I'm pretty sure that anyone older than a child and most older children can operate a bolt cutter.Just another case of "lets make more laws instead of use the ones we have".How many organizations out there offer free gun locks. I have a couple that were handed out in Wal-mart.What good is a gun lock going to do me at 0300hrs when my house is broken into.

Criminals will get guns.If you make it illegal for them to get them, they are going to break into your house, rape you and your children, and then kill you and your children, and then steal your guns.

Handguns already have waiting periods.If rifles had wait times, the criminals would just use the pistol that they stole from you to commit the crime.

As tooten said a database already exists.

Canada had a database of all gun owners. They closed it down and said that it was a colossal waste of money.

All a database of registered guns stands for is a shopping list for Nato soldiers when they come to take your guns. Oh yeah I just said that. Obama signed legislation last year to allow Nato troops on our soil.

I would agree with a little stamp on your drivers license put there by the DMV that says that you are not a Felon. Call it a compromise.

asterix wrote:So who exactly would a gun lock keep from getting at your gun?

As I mentioned in one of the posts. It proves in court you had a method to secure the firearm. If you choose not to, which is still your choice, you're responsible. Yes, in Wisconsin you are responsible if a child accesses your gun. That law doesn't exist in every state. It also doesn't have any effect on your drunk friend that decides to play with the gun.

Those locks won't stop a determined thief, child, etc. It will slow down a casual idiot though.

It's also a better suggestion than requiring people buy an expensive gun safe (a better option, but I was trying to be realistic and keep costs low).

On a side note, congrats, you managed to bring up "liberal" three times in one post. If you focus less on blame and more on the issue at hand your posts might come across as a little less fanatical... You have good information, and some good points, shifting the focus by blaming doesn't help your argument.

I lived it, including the fear, the adrenalin rushes, the gunfire, the blood, the gore and many many hours in court rooms after the fact and I certainly don't have the rose colored glasses view of the world that some have. In the 70's I watched as the mental institutions were closed and thousands of people, that were incapable of caring for themselves, were put out on the streets and became the homeless and derelicts of the day. The social workers worked 9 to 5 in their cozy offices and spent most of their working hours trying to increase the size of their bureaucracies. The cops were left to deal with these people in the middle of the night, but they were certainly free. Free to drink, to do drugs, free to go unwashed, free to cause all types of problems, free to to sleep where ever they landed. Many nights we put these people in jail without charges, without warrants, without convictions but they didn't freeze to death and at least got a meal.

I watched as the black population of the Chicago turned from hard working, family oriented people into what you see today. Where 70 percent of the kids are born to single mothers. Where the fathers are referred to as "my baby's Daddy." Where fathers don't or won't even acknowledge their own kids. Were gangs are the new family for most children. Where successful blacks like Condeliza Rice or Colin Powell are referred to as "Oreos," but where crooks and con men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are held in high esteem. Where crime and drug abuse is the norm. And of course where the government check is the sole means of support. The exact same degradation is happening to the city's Mexican and Spanish and much of the white population today. Why? Because of the welfare system and liberal policies. We're are now on our third generation of those beloved liberal policies and I've seen no improvement in the peoples lives that are supposed to be helped by them. What those policies have succeeded in doing is quash the future of children that demonstrate an effort and will to succeed in the face of adversity.

Those modern liberal policies were promoted and placed into effect by Lyndon B. Johnson, a Southern Democrat opportunist, not out of compassion, but a lust for power and control. They served him and his political party well. The same Johnson who, because of his big ego and need for control thought he could run a war from the White House instead of letting his Generals do the job they were trained to do. The same Johnson who has the responsibility for most of those names on that black marble wall in Washington. By the way, the majority of those names belong to draftees who's parents couldn't afford to keep them plugged into a collage where they could smoke pot, take LSD, raise **** in the name of liberalism and avoid the draft.

If you don't like my use of the term "liberal(s), I'll stand corrected again, Mr. Tobin, but the more I read the more I think River Rat made the correct call call on this subject when he used the term moronic. Understand this, Mr. Tobin, the word "liberal" spits from my mouth like the venom from a cobra and it is far worse in person than in my writings to this message board. I've watched liberal politics take this country to the brink of bankruptcy with it's never ending desire for unlimited spending and it's, "do as I say, we know what's best," need for control. Being referred to as a fanatic by a twerp, who's entire world view is that of a person raised in a very small, lily white, community, who attended a second-string university in rural Wisconsin, without a doubt on his parents dime, and now parks his butt in front of a computer screen while on a government payroll, is in fact an honor.

According to CNN Joe Biden said, "The president is going to act. Executive orders, executive action, can be taken," "We haven't decided what this is yet, but we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the Cabinet members." I'm sure that Biden will come up with a list of "reasonable, and thought out, gun control law proposals" to further their ends and improve upon Second Amendment. What the administration will ignore is the part about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" because it doesn't suit their agenda. They don't want the guns they want the power and the control. Given the huge mandate they won in the last election when they are done with the 2nd Amendment the will go after the 22nd. The latest dribble from the media is that the administration is planning on removing the ATF from the Homeland Security Department and making it a stand alone agency to enforce existing laws and the new executive ordered mandates. You can call me a fanatic but I once saw a movie where only the Police and the Military had guns, it was called Schindler's List.

Mr. Obama using excutive orders makes him KING!! Geez, I thought I lived in a democracy. Kerry, have you ever filed for sales tax in the state of Wisconsin? I'm guessing no. Our federal and state tax codes are perfect examples of what a cluster beaucracy has become. And you suggest they now do a national database for firearms? Have you tried to purchase a gun in New Jersey? Ask a New Jersey resident as to how expensive it is and the mess they have to go through in order to get a gun in that state? Maybe you should get out from that desk of yours and the computer screen you live behind and see what the other parts of the country is really about.

Wow, a personalized attack from someone that hides behind a pseudonym, that's rich... I never said you were a fanatic, I said the blame games make your comments sound that way. I'd also suggest that with all your worldly travels and experience you should know better than to make assumptions about anyone. You have no idea who paid for my education, how extensive it is, etc. You have some information, because I've made some things public or because you know my name and can look it up. I doubt you know my full work history either. And if you were in law enforcement you were working on the government dime too. Congrats, you must be a lazy bum that eats donuts all day right?

If you actually READ the comment, I said you had good information and informative posts. Never mind...

mizriz wrote:And you suggest they now do a national database for firearms?

Mizriz, I never suggested a national database for guns. I suggested a database for STOLEN guns, which has been pointed out, I believe by Tooten, to already exist (not just for guns). I'm very against the idea of having a database of guns, gun registration, etc.

Does the OP really, truly, deep in his gut believe that his proposals 1-5 will prevent another Sandy Hook?

I can't see how anyone could think they would.

Wimpy little cable locks and making a deer hunter wait 48 hours to get his .270 aint going to do it. Neither is closing the so called "gun show loophole." A crazy mad-man murderer is just that. He'll use a machete, pipe bomb, or a pair of scissors.....anything. He'll lie, cheat, and steal to do it.

The only thing really going on here is political posturing, at the expense of a god-given right that our county is based on. It's truly pathetic.

Will we survive with POTUS and VPOTUS stripping the 2nd amendment?.....yep. As will we survive when we no longer have the choice to practice the religion we believe in, as we will survive when we can no longer say what we think is right.